SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the dietetics-dianetics,-what's-the-difference dept.
The judge noted that the "health coach" was free to offer pro bono advice.
A federal court on Wednesday rejected claims by an unlicensed "health coach" that the unqualified health advice she provided to paying clients was protected speech under the First Amendment.
In rejecting her claim, the court affirmed that states do indeed have the right to require that anyone charging for health and medical services - in this case, dietetics and nutrition advice - be qualified and licensed. (State laws governing who can offer personalized nutrition services vary considerably, however.)
Heather Del Castillo, a "holistic health coach" based in Florida, brought the case in October of 2017 shortly after she was busted in an undercover investigation by the state health department. At the time, Del Castillo was running a health-coaching business called Constitution Nutrition, which offered a personalized, six-month health and dietary program. The program involved 13 in-home consulting sessions, 12 of which cost $95 each.
Under a Florida state law called the Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Act (DNPA), anyone offering such services needs to be qualified and licensed to protect against bogus advice that could cause significant harms. Those qualifications include having a bachelor's or graduate degree in a relevant field, such as nutrition, from an accredited institution; having at least 900 hours of education or experience approved by the state's Board of Medicine; and passing the state's licensing exam.
Del Castillo had completed none of those things. Her only credential for providing health services was a certificate from an unaccredited, for-profit online school called the Institution for Integrative Nutrition. Otherwise, she had a bachelor's degree in geography and a master's in education. [...]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday July 23 2019, @05:49PM
Don't disagree. However, professionals are also usually only liable in tort for their representations when they have been compensated for them. (Which occurred in this case - they paid her and she delivered advice). They can still be responsible before licensing boards AFAIK, although her taking money sealed the deal that she was acting in a manner reserved for the professionally licensed. Mrs. Lawn used to work with supplements at a store which sold more than that, and had quite a bit of training on how to respond to questions from the public where they referenced people where to get advice rather than giving the advice themselves.
The other aspect is that in this case the person was not holding herself out to be a "nutritionist," but rather a, "health coach," according to TFA. The issue here as you noted, however, is that she was acting as a nutritionist without the credentials to do so whether she claimed the title or not and charging for that activity. One does not have to say one is a surgeon - if one cuts on a person and takes money for it one has practiced medicine without a license. One can say, "I am NOT a surgeon," but if one still takes money and then cuts then one is still acting as such without the credential.
This sig for rent.